Ron Gould's method is appropriate if you have the talent for it. Think of Woody Hayes if you are old enough. Ohio state could win almost always over less talented teams. But their style precluded winning against a more talented team, like In the Rose Bowl. You have to be multidimensional to pull of an upset. Also need luck and if you don't take chances you don't leave room for luck.
Gould had the perspective of a position coach where proper technique was the way to succeed, I think he assumed if you took care of the ball and avoided penalties you would win your share. So we won time of possession, Opposing coaches praised our ability to line up correctly. We weren't heavily penalized etc, But strategy was limited, Gould did not find a way to utilize good athletes on the team like Turay or Silvera. At this level you need to find ways to use your talent.

The best argument that this game is the game of the week is that no one knows who's going to win. If there is a favorite here it's because you are at home. It seems you have a solid team; would you say they played conservatively after getting the big lead last week?
I kind of assume everyone should hammer Sac State. To your teams credit they were able to stage a long drive near the end of the game to put it away.

Not much in their record this year that seems impressive. Against sac they had less than 300 yards of offense, and had low gain per carry and short completions. Perhaps they just played really conservative as they got a quick lead due to a trick play and a blocked punt. Almost saw their lead slip away. Seem to have little faith in their field goal kicker, as they went for two on their early touchdowns. I think they have a freshman kicker.

Oldaggiw, I think the San Diego game can't be discounted. Pretty similar to playing an Ivy, they give aid to athletes. Sure we should be favored, but what does Cal Poly think about whether beating them means anything? Showed we could defend against a pretty good experienced qb. They scared me by how well they ran the ball between the tackles, so it wasn't like playing an out classed opponent.
We get a lot of recruits out of San Diego area, I think we should play San Diego regularly.
But you are right that we haven't beat a top notch FCS team yet. Im looking forward to pulling of an upset against a better team. I think we'll see that happen this year for the reason you state. We are not predictable and we give opponents more to prepare for.

I think Hawkins will stay if the job is rewarding in the sense of wins and progress toward building something. He's done the move up from Boise to Colorado, and I don't think he found that personally satisfying. At his age money starts to mean less, as he's already probably financially secure and his kids are raised. Just a guess, as I don't know the man. If he gets frustrated with the situation he's probably out of here. I think he's sincere in viewing Davis as a sleeping giant. We all know the challenges to that but there aren't many D1 bottom feeders that would offer a better opportunity.
In regards to comparisons with Joe Montana, being like Montana in an FCS setting is not the same as being Joe Montana in the NFL. I think we see what Hawkins is referring to; Maier looks like a winner in that he is cool under pressure, sees the field, and makes plays.

The computer rankings and predictions are in the main still influenced by where the teams were ranked prior to any games being played,. Our recent game performance is better than Weber's. Sagarin rankings have the two teams adjacent to each other. Weber predicted the winner based on one methodology and us favored via another ( offense-defense). Anyone's game. I wouldn't bet against us though. The coaching staff seems to know how to get touchdowns, and we have enough offensive talent for them to work with.

We are fortunate that we are good at wide receiver and qb, which are required for us to play our traditional aggie style. By which I mean a pass predominant style, which we always had except Gould era.

Also, I like our backs They don't have great stats but are versatile and have varied skills.
Defense again was tough when it counted.

In retrospect the game showed PSU had serious flaws, bad kicker, frosh qb who played like one. Slow punter. We on the other hand had no glaring deficiencies a good team all around.

Next week is anybody's game, which is the way I think the season will be. We can play with these teams now.

The Big Sky isn't that tough, we've just happened to be bad since we joined. Evidence for that is our record against Big Sky teams before we joined, and look at the sagarin ratings of the teams all clustered around mediocrity. I think we will win games here and there and be competitive in most games in conference.

I see we have an American studies major, and a Native American studies major as well! Not knocking those majors. My view is if a player majors in anything he wants and makes progress to a degree, good.
But I'm still curious if we have some obstacle to transfers; because we get hardly any, except JC. I know it used to be hard or impossible to transfer from a JC without having completed 90 plus quarter units. I wonder if the same applies to transfers from other UC campuses. That would be dumb. It would be nice if the flow of players between davis and UCLA was not unidirectional. We lost a defensive end to them back around 2006 and this year a running back.

The hand clap for the snap seemed a little predictable, to say the least. The defense not only recognizes it but it is telegraphed by the hands starting to move towards each other. Maybe there is some variation not noted.

Optimistic about this weeks game. I think we are a slight underdog. If we're not competitive I'll be surprised. Wish we had shown ourselves a little better against the run. We bent a lot but didn't break, but maybe that wont be the case against tougher opponents. Still, I think we'll see the offense get better each game for a while. I'm sure other teams are not as comfortable against us as they were against Gould. Not playing so predictable and conservative is an immediate improvement. Have to feel confident with the coaching staffs experience. I'm feeling we'll have to outscore teams; but I think we can do that.

I don't think summer classes are representative. Some summer classes are open to high school juniors. But the point is UCLA and Cal are as prestigious and as academically rigorous as UC Davis. Maybe like Avis, Davis tries harder, but on the other hand the students at Cal or UCLA, as a group, were higher achievers in high school. I'm a Davis grad and proud of it. My daughter is a UCLA grad and I'm proud of that and rightly so.

So, no easy majors at davis? Berkeley and UCLA are quirky but so is Davis. I suspect we have the same BS courses they do; and I don't mean bachelor of science. I'm not saying accept a student athlete who isn't making progress toward a degree. We are not going to tarnish our sterling reputation by taking transfers from top tier University campus. We may pat ourselves on the back, but Cal and UCLA have bruises from patting themselves on the back too.

So, do we have internal obstacles in the form of campus or UC policies that limit inter-system transfers for athletes? Most FCS schools have a few former FBS players on roster. Our academic standards are high but they shouldn't be so high we can't take transfers in good academic standing from a UC school. One would think there would be some who find themselves in a situation where they would be better off at a lower level for one reason or another. It might benefit both schools and the player.

It wouldn't surprise me if we have some obstacle to transfers like requiring them to have 60 units or something like that.

I transferred from JC to UCD semester to quarter no big deal. The classes all line up and prerequisites all satisfied. If they leave mid year they may loose a few units going from semester to quarter, They would get all the units but might not satisfy a prerequisite, and have to repeat something.

In regards to a couple of players trying to move up as walk-instead at higher levels, that's going to continue to be rare. They give up a scholarship, playing time. What should be more common is players moving down because they don't get playing time. Why don't Cal or UCLA players transfer here? It's happened but only once or twice, and none since we've been division1 that I recall. I think they can do so without sitting out a year, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

I think we'll be competitive in the Big Sky. it doesn't seem there is a dominant team in the conference this year so each week we should have a chance to win. .We have seen in these first two games that our team has skilled QB and receivers, probably better than anyone expected.. On defense our linebackers and secondary seem pretty deep and solid. We are not going to be dominant on either side of the ball on the lines, but what is new about that? While we shouldn't be favored in most matchups, I think our new offense will move the ball and get some scores. I think in recent years our style doomed us to lose against physically superior teams, not so much anymore. Plus we'll sometimes roll the dice. Sometimes if you don't gamble you can't win, whereas if you do you might win.

Gould inherited a relatively veteran team, lots of returning staters,
and lucked into Manzaneras, a walk-on.
He had an opportunity to do better than 5-3.
He blew that probably due to bringing in a very inexperienced staff.

And we lost the time of possession contest.